People Will Always Talk

In addition to reminding me of a Seinfeld episode, a question at Miss Manners also helped me appreciate personal growth in an area that used to cause me unnecessary worry.

The writer is a nail salon customer who can't seem to shake the feeling that she is being talked about in the native language of the staff, and asks what to do. The nut of Judith Martin's reply is:

[Y]ou could simply acknowledge that people can talk among themselves, without eavesdroppers assuming ill will.

And even if they were gossiping about her, who cares, so long as it isn't so obvious as to be rude. It's just a business transaction.

When I was young, a similar issue came up for me right after college, and a friendly acquaintance accidentally helped me see I was making a mountain out of a molehill. We were talking about something else entirely, when he shrugged off something silly someone had said about him, saying People talk about other people all the time.

That may sound like stating the obvious, but it was a lightbulb going off for me, and helped me achieve anough psychological distance from what I was worried about to think about the issue more objectively. Soon after, the kind of scenario that caused the pedicure customer so much angst stopped bothering me.

Reputation still matters, of course, but whether to be concerned about someone speaking well or ill of you is highly context-dependent along multiple axes.

The writer admits to wanting to remain a customer, so the very low bar of being treated with a reasonable degree of courtesy seems to have been met, and she is happy with what she has paid for. I'm a little surprised she is even uncomfortable, but that wouldn't have been true of me many years ago.

-- CAV

Trump's Omar Raid Is a Gift to the Left

President Trump's DHS raided Ilhan Omar's (D-MN) Washington residence Monday morning, thereby placing her in a good position to play up her victimhood (imagined and now real), fund-raise, and galvanize her base.

I am no fan of the antisemitic, socialist congresswoman, but I strongly object to this raid, which is an obvious, hamfisted attempt to intimidate a political opponent.

But don't take my word for that. Both stories linked above note that it is unusual for the Department of Justice to take such actions within 60 days of an election, the first elaborating:

As The Associated Press notes, "The Justice Department has historically sought to avoid public investigative actions involving a candidate within 60 days of a primary or general election." That norm is observed precisely to avoid abusing the law enforcement power of the federal government for political purposes -- and to avoid generating suspicions that legitimate investigations are political. [bold added]

.The piece continues, stating the obvious:

That the Trump administration is choosing to shun that norm gives away the game. Furthermore the fact that since last year Trump has been saying he wants Omar out of the country and that he thinks she shouldn't be allowed to serve in Congress is a clear signal about potential motives.

This source is an editorial in MS Now, a left-wing outlet, but consider the following:

... While [Trump] has effectively singled out white South Africans for entry into the country as refugees, he describes Somali immigrants as "garbage" and "low-IQ people" who ought to be kicked out. Trump sees trying to oust Omar, a Somali American, from Congress (or the country) as a way to deliver red meat to the most extreme elements of his base. In his comments on the raid Monday, Trump said, "I think she's a terrible person, she's just a complainer. She comes from a country that is a non-country. Then she comes over here and complains about our constitution." The implication is that Trump seems to think Omar's specific national origin should bar her from having the full rights of a citizen -- and he appears offended that she exercises them so confidently. [links in original]

This all follows "The reality, it should be easy to deduce, is that Trump sees Omar as a convenient target for his white nationalist agenda." Trump is plainly a bigot and a xenophobe. The only debatable part of this sentence is whether he has an actual agenda for anything, or is enabling others in his orbit who do.

In any event, as someone who has called himself a fiscal conservative in the past, I have seen and been subjected to smears for "racism" by leftists, who eagerly package-deal capitalism with racism in order to discredit the former.

Donald Trump is not only a threat to longstanding American political norms, he and his cronies are a gift to such people that will keep on giving.

Consider, for example, a recent juvenile remark by his heir apparent, JD Vance, which is par for this course:

"Trump, Vance & GOP could offer TX voters solutions for the affordability crisis, healthcare, immigration, Epstein accountability & ending the costly/deadly Iran war," political commentator Andy Ostroy wrote Tuesday. "Or, they can just claim Talarico is gay & obsesses over 'trans kids & drag queens'..."

New York Times contributing opinion writer Matthew Yglesias also weighed in.

"Having made inroads with various traditionally blue constituencies in 2024, Republicans have spent the fall telling everyone that they really do hate gay people and all non-white immigrants," he said in an X post. [bold added]

As he has done with his foreign "policy" of insulting friendly nations and alienating allies, Trump and his cronies are destroying their own credibility, that of their party, and that of anyone who has ever been associated with conservatism or libertarianism. On top of that, the left will happily take the fact that he is living up to all their dishonest stereotypes of "Republicans" and run with it.

The damage Trump is doing to this country, the cause of liberty, and those who ally with him -- especially those who do so only out of desperation -- is enormous and will take a very long time to recover from.

-- CAV

Remedial Economics RE: Price Caps

At Reason, Veronique de Rugy warns us that we should be terrified of price caps.

Regulars here will already know that this is an immoral and impractical idea that would distort markets and lead to shortages if put into practice.

Same regulars might not know how popular this stupid idea is, though:

A new Wall Street Journal poll finds remarkable bipartisan support for government limits on prices, with 93 percent of Democrats and 83 percent of Republicans supporting capping prescription drug prices. Nearly four in five voters support capping credit card interest rates at 10 percent. And large majorities favor capping child care charges for working families. [bold added]

This news should be a clarion call for anyone with half a clue about economics.

Fortunately, de Rugy follows this up with a few brief paragraphs that might help any reasonably intelligent, thoughtful adult who isn't up to speed on economics realize why this idea is even worse than it is popular:

Consider credit cards. A 10 percent interest rate cap sounds lovely. Many Americans pay twice that. Why not simply tell banks that's the limit? Because an interest rate isn't an arbitrary number. It is the price of credit that reflects funding costs, administrative expenses, and, not least, expected default risks.

Congress can cap the rate, but it can't cap the risk. When the price a lender can charge falls below what the risk costs, lending stops. Lenders turn down applicants, cut credit limits, and close accounts. The borrowers the cap was supposed to protect still need the money. They end up at the payday lender or the pawn shop instead. In other words, interest rate caps hurt the economically vulnerable people they are supposed to help. [bold added]

De Rugy does the same quick analyses with two other areas that have politicians talking about price controls. Perhaps these walkthroughs will help people understand that price controls lead to shortages.

The piece is far from perfect, most glaringly in that it takes for granted the flawed idea that self-interest is predatory. This limits the usefulness of the piece to serving only as an economic lesson, although it is clear enough that the various price-capping measures out there will, in fact, harm the people they're supposed to be helping.

Price caps are not just stupid, they violate individual rights and, as such, they are also a moral outrage. But getting the word out about the former can be a decent place to start.

-- CAV

Vance Backwards on 'Socialism,' Foreign Labor

Writing at Reason, Billy Binion demolishes the Vice President's recent assertion that socialism "actually means ... that you want to replace American workers with foreign workers, and you want boys to play in girls sports"

You can go to the article itself for his quick demolition of the low-hanging fruit at the end of that ridiculous pronouncement.

The rest explains why Binion rather charitably labels J.D. Vance an "accidental socialist:"

[T]he Trump administration has complained about socialism while subtly embracing it. The government has, for example, taken stakes in dozens of private companies. "Federal ownership of private companies has become routine, and it is happening on the right even as members busily point fingers at the left for its socialism," wrote Reason contributing editor Veronique de Rugy in August. "The DSA [Democratic Socialists of America] at least tells Americans clearly what it wants. The danger on the right is quieter: a government acquiring the means of production one letter of intent at a time, and a political party acting as though socialism is something only the other side can do."

That's not to imply the White House is moving to abolish private property. Yet never before has a Republican administration exerted such control over the private sector while making "socialism" its primary bogeyman. Is irony dead?

Immigration is a particularly useful subject through which to examine this phenomenon. Which is closer to the concept of "socialism": when the free market decides whom companies can employ? Or when the government does? [bold added]

I am glad such a prominent commentator has finally made this identification.

In the same vein as I have said numerous times, "It is no business of President Trump where I buy my car from any more than it was Biden's what fuel it uses." It also isn't the President's business where my employees live. The Republicans' new anti-immigration/anti-free trade agenda is indeed much closer to socialism than it is to economic freedom.

-- CAV

Friday Funnies

A Friday Hodgepodge

I'm in the mood for some laughs this morning, how about you?

1. It can do many things, but can AI create inspirational posters? My favorite -- at least that holds up best without its background image -- from this collection is:

Glorious is the father who owns his quotes, for he also rejoices over his hut.

You be the judge. (HT: Paul Hsieh)

2. One of the more benevolent communities on the internet is the Bald reddit, which helps folks to "lose your hair, not your head."

People go there to get advice from "the council" on whether it's time to just shave the rest of it off, and may be jokingly told things like You're already bald! or (when they still look good with hair) Hold!

Recently, a guy who was sure it was time asked for confirmation, and his top-of-head shot inspired a Game of Thrones-themed map in reply.

For the record, I'm a hold, but barely, thanks to minoxidil. My wife and I joke about her letting me go bald, if I'll let her her go grey.

3. David Bushell doesn't just complain about bad software, he does something about it, as you will see in "Fine! I'll Build My Own Text Editor!":

Image via Know Your Meme.

"They don't make 'em like Sublime Text anymore" resonated with a lot of folk. Software these days is garbage. That got me thinking; I'm good at building garbage!

Why can't I build my own text editor?

VS Code is built upon Monaco Editor which is a <div> soup hellscape. I was late to the VS Code train because for years my Intel inside™ Mac was too slow. That issue was resolved when I bought Apple silicon. If that's the standard I have a lot of room to make mistakes.

I thank Bushell for the laughs, and for introducing me to an old meme, illustrated above at right, that escaped my attention back in the day.

The advantage of finding memes five-plus years older than your children is that there's a decent chance they don't know about them and you can get a laugh, as I learned the last time we did a family painting class outing.

4. Rob Walling's "How to Detect a Toxic Customer" is a humorous guide to early detection, and includes such signs as:

Warning Sign #3: Multiple Contacts, Often Through Multiple Channels

One of my favorites is to receive 3 emails (one each to our sales, support and info addresses), and a voice mail from the same person within a few minutes.

The request is not time-sensitive, the person just want to make sure someone receives it. And we do receive it ... four times.

I've never really understood this one; either they are really anxious to have their question answered, or they don't believe they are going to hear back. Either way, if you have to send four requests in order to hear back do you really want to buy software from that company?

Interestingly, the post itself shows the author practicing what he preaches, and still making a sale even after refusing to do business with a clueless, entitled person who tried to buy from him.

-- CAV

Live Through the Pain

Editor's Note: There is a small but nonzero possibility that weather associated with the hurricane brewing in the Gulf of Mexico will cause me to miss a post tomorrow or be offline for a day or so.

***

Someone responded to a Dear Prudence column with advice for dealing with chronic pain that struck me as worth keeping in the bank for any kind of similar problem that can't be solved:

Over time, I have come to see my migraines differently. My graduate school mentor, who studied healthy aging, would regularly say something along the lines of "Growing old is a privilege too few people get" when people, usually younger students but also the elderly study participants, would get a bit gloomy about the challenges older folks often face... I have done quite a bit of reading about the kind of head injury I experienced, and what I've learned is this: The vast majority of kids who get hurt as I did die immediately or shortly after. As one of the few who lived, I am one of the lucky ones. My migraines aren't going anywhere, but I have the privilege of being alive. I have an incredible wife, and a smart, funny, sweet, cool-as-could-be young daughter. My job, where I have too few days off to take leave when I get migraines, involves attempting to prevent people from developing chronic or deadly health issues. The price I must pay to have these incredible people and this meaningful life is frequent migraines. I accept that price.

That kind of perspective may not relieve that man's pain, but it puts him in a place of agency, which he otherwise would not occupy. He won that perspective by considering how things might have been different, and focusing on the values in his life.

This account reminds me of the sports saying, Play through the pain, except that it is constructive, rather than a foolish invitation to injury. Perhaps Live through the pain can leverage the familiarity to help one remember this positive alternative, if it is ever needed.

-- CAV

P.S. I would sound a note of caution about Prudence's mention of psychedelics. While they have helped some, they can themselves cause permanent, negative side effects.

An Upcoming Challenge for Secularists on Ethics

[T]hey've never faced the fact that while they've rejected so many other doctrines of their childhood preachers, altruism is the one they've never been willing to let go. -- Ben Bayer

***

While I cannot, off the top of my head, recall exactly where I first learned the above insight, I do recall seeing words to that effect by Ben Bayer and admiring what a great connection he had made.

Bayer elaborates on that connection at length in the upcoming Breaking Free from Faith-Based Morality, which will be published by Ayn Rand University Press in December.

In addition to its preface appearing at New Ideal, the book is available for preorder through Amazon.

Below is the conclusion of a look at America's "culture-wide religious fervor," which emphatically includes the secular part of the left:

I love the cover! (Image from Ayn Rand University Press, via New Ideal.)

Each of the other [left-wing] activist movements demands similar Abrahamic submission. Whether we are to sacrifice economic prosperity to Gaia's pristine wilderness or economic freedom and property rights to the classless society of the future, the activists demand we surrender ourselves and our values on the altar of the allegedly "higher" end of serving some Other. This moral outlook enjoins the virtue of humble self-sacrifice, and condemns heretics who commit the sin of prideful self-esteem. Even though many of the modern activists think of themselves as secular, they draw these core doctrines from none other than Judeo-Christian religion -- whether they know it or not.

More rational thinkers in the secular camp may agree there is something wrong with the religious fervor that motivates these activists, but concede that there is something noble about their (professed) ends. They may say that the Bible verses quoted by Talarico and Warnock are from a primitive mindset, but they motivate people to uplift the poor (etc.). But how do these thinkers know that their conception of the noble end is noble and not itself a product of that same primitive, religious mindset?

I think secular altruism -- the doctrine that morality consists in selfless service to others -- is in fact such a product, a holdover from Christianity's two-millennia monopoly over our thinking about right and wrong, good and evil. [bold added]

This will come as no surprise to anyone with more than a passing familiarity with Ayn Rand's critiques of altruism. What this book will do, I hope, is both to make it easier for Objectivists to apply that critique to today's cultural particulars and help some of today's secular leftists reach a point of being intellectually ready to consider that critique and thus learn of a much more practical and intellectually fertile way to think about morality.

I'm glad to hear about this book and look forward to reading it over the holidays.

-- CAV